Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Please show how the concrete flooring, not the floor pans, was anchored to the inner and outer columns to provide structural integrity to the building. A simple explanation is acceptable, but an engineering drawing would be better.

Why? I already sourced my claim complete with drawings. Did you not look at it? I was asked to cite a claim. I did just that.

Also consider that the temperatures of the fire floors would have spalled the concrete rendering it useless as far as providing any integrity whatsoever.

It's considered. Lets see your reports and drawings on how this would cause a sudden global collapse of an entire skyscraper. Good Luck.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sivan Kurzberg

A building with concrete beams, concrete columns and concrete slabs is one thing.

A building with steel beams, steel columns, and concrete slabs is another thing.

As you see... Certain people can't make the distinction. I made it very clear to him that the floor slabs were the only place in which it was used in the majority of the construction. It was not a load bearing component. Anyone suggesting that the existence of lightweight concrete on a composite floor deck makes the towers synonymous with the Windsor Building is making a DOA case.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

As you see... Certain people can't make the distinction. I made it very clear to him that the floor slabs were the only place in which it was used in the majority of the construction. It was not a load bearing component. Anyone suggesting that the existence of lightweight concrete on a composite floor deck makes the towers synonymous with the Windsor Building is making a DOA case.

This was your claim.

The concrete was non-structural,

That is wrong and I cited why it was wrong just like I was asked to.

 

[Garb]

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/godfrey.htm



The fireproofing is there to protect the steel nobody says differently. It doesn’t however mean that a high-rise will completely collapse all the way around simultaneously once the fire goes past the fire proof rating.

Thank you for citing. Though the red "commentary" confuses me. I would like to know who specifically is providing the commentary, because the claim that the concrete is an important structural factor in the building is a part of that. (Though it does say the composite steel AND concrete) is important.

 

[triforcharity]

If I recall correctly building content fire has never been the cause of a complete collapse of a steel structured skyscraper before or since 9/11. It doesn't stop you from claiming it happened though.

And multi-story fires, over 5+/- floors, starting at the same time after a 767 plowed into them at ~500 MPH had never happened before either.

But your terrorist friends that you cheer and applaud did fly 767's into two skyscrapers, an office, and a field.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Thank you for citing. Though the red "commentary" confuses me. I would like to know who specifically is providing the commentary, because the claim that the concrete is an important structural factor in the building is a part of that. (Though it does say the composite steel AND concrete) is important.

You're welcome. I don't know who is commenting. But the explanation to the drawing in the original report says:

Diagram (above): Framed tube construction principle: load-bearing external walls stiffened by the floors to form a torsionally rigid tube

Which is what I originally posted and was asked to cite.

The concrete floors provided rigidity to the columns.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

And multi-story fires, over 5+/- floors, starting at the same time after a 767 plowed into them at ~500 MPH had never happened before either

.

Planes have never crashed into buildings and set them on fire? That's not true. But what does it matter anyway? It was the fire according to NIST not the plane impacts that knocked the buildings down and no plane crashed into WTC-7.

But your terrorist friends that you cheer and applaud did fly 767's into two skyscrapers, an office, and a field.

My friends that I cheer huh? Yeah right. lol Do you remember who was caught cheering on 9/11? Sivan Kurzberg and his friends that's who.

 

[triforcharity]

.

Planes have never crashed into buildings and set them on fire? That's not true. But what does it matter anyway? It was the fire according to NIST not the plane impacts that knocked the buildings down and no plane crashed into WTC-7.

That is not what I said. I said planes had not been flown into a building at ~500 MPH before. Read the quote.

Obviously, the NIST report on 1&2 WTC was never read by you, as that is NOT what they claim at all. The two are mutually INCLUSIVE. Meaning without one, you cannot have the other. Sorry about your delision.

.
My friends that I cheer huh? Yeah right. lol Do you remember who was caught cheering on 9/11? Sivan Kurzberg and his friends that's who.

Yes. I realize that. How was that interrogation?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That is wrong and I cited why it was wrong just like I was asked to.

I have a better source than you do:
"Composite decking is designed to work together with the concrete floor topping to make a stiff, lightweight, economical deck. The metal decking serves as a tensile reinforcing for the concrete, to which it bonds by means of special rib patterns in the sheet metal or by small steel rods or wire fabric welded to the tops of the corrugations."

Composite construction is often carried beyond the step of decking to include the beams of the floor. This application related to installing shear studs to implement a strong shear connection to the composite system. The concrete adds resistance to compressive forces for the steel member. This essentially takes advantage of the unused strength of the concrete topping that has to be present in the construction anyway.

Source: Allen, Edward, Joseph Iano. Fundamentals of Building Construction 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2004
Chapter 11, page 410-411 will give you the full excerpt of source content. I think I was honestly unclear. The concrete on its own is not a structural component, it only works because the steel structure that comprises the floor frame gives it tensile strength and the concrete in turn, gives the structural steel component added rigidity. The word composite is extremely important. It is not a load bearing element contrary to what MM's claim implies. Rather it provides rigidity that increases the load bearing capacity of the truss & decking. Hence why comparing to a building such as Madrid's Windsor tower is DOA.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

That is not what I said. I said planes had not been flown into a building at ~500 MPH before. Read the quote.

Obviously, the NIST report on 1&2 WTC was never read by you, as that is NOT what they claim at all. The two are mutually INCLUSIVE. Meaning without one, you cannot have the other. Sorry about your delision.

My delison? No plane crashed into WTC-7 at even 30 MPH so it doesn't matter. In fact it's not even the reason NIST claims the buildings collapsed. If NIST had told you the towers collapsed because of thermal expansion admit it, it would have been good enough for you. Too bad they didn't brainstorm that excuse back when they wrote their collapse initiation report on the towers. It could have saved a lot of time and money.

Yes. I realize that. How was that interrogation?

Do you not realize I am not a fan of Kurzberg?

 

[excaza]

My delison? No plane crashed into WTC-7 at even 30 MPH so it doesn't matter. In fact it's not even the reason NIST claims the buildings collapsed. If NIST had told you the towers collapsed because of thermal expansion admit it, it would have been good enough for you. Too bad they didn't brainstorm that excuse back when they wrote their collapse initiation report on the towers. It could have saved a lot of time and money.

Ok, where is your report on how the towers collapsed? I would like to read it. Particularly the parts showing the evidence for CD.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

I have a better source than you do:
"Composite decking is designed to work together with the concrete floor topping to make a stiff, lightweight, economical deck. The metal decking serves as a tensile reinforcing for the concrete, to which it bonds by means of special rib patterns in the sheet metal or by small steel rods or wire fabric welded to the tops of the corrugations."

Composite construction is often carried beyond the step of decking to include the beams of the floor. This application related to installing shear studs to implement a strong shear connection to the composite system. The concrete adds resistance to compressive forces for the steel member. This essentially takes advantage of the unused strength of the concrete topping that has to be present in the construction anyway.

Source: Allen, Edward, Joseph Iano. Fundamentals of Building Construction 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2004
Chapter 11, page 410-411 will give you the full excerpt of source content. I think I was honestly unclear. The concrete on its own is not a structural component, it only works because the steel structure that comprises the floor frame gives it tensile strength and the concrete in turn, gives the structural steel component added rigidity. The word composite is extremely important. It is not a load bearing element contrary to what MM's claim implies. Rather it provides rigidity that increases the load bearing capacity of the truss & decking. Hence why comparing to a building such as Madrid's Windsor tower is DOA.

The concrete in the towers wasn't on its own. So what's your point?

Saying the concrete wasn't structural is wrong. Face it.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Ok, where is your report on how the towers collapsed? I would like to read it. Particularly the parts showing the evidence for CD.

Never said I wrote one. How about you? Did you write the NIST report?

 

[excaza]

Never said I wrote one.

Well then, what are you using as evidence to counter the NIST report? I would like to read it.

How about you?Did you write the NIST report?

Relevance?

 

[T.A.M.]

I believe most of the concrete in the towers, was in the floors...structural in the sense of holding people up, but I am not sure (plead ignorance) on whether they contributed signficantly to the support of the building standing up...I doubt it.

TAM

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Well then, what are you using as evidence to counter the NIST report? I would like to read it.

I linked it. Go back in this tread and find it if you're really interested.

Relevance?

You asked me if I wrote something. I'm asking if you did.

 

[excaza]

I believe most of the concrete in the towers, was in the floors...structural in the sense of holding people up, but I am not sure (plead ignorance) on whether they contributed signficantly to the support of the building standing up...I doubt it.

TAM

The floors provided torsional rigidity, as would any floor spanning the interior of a box, I'm not sure how that's relevant to the vertical loads.

You asked me if I wrote something. I'm asking if you did.

If you have evidence showing NIST is wrong, wouldn't you want to send it to NIST? I'm not the one saying the NIST report is wrong. Would you like me to send a letter to NIST telling them that?

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

I believe most of the concrete in the towers, was in the floors...structural in the sense of holding people up, but I am not sure (plead ignorance) on whether they contributed signficantly to the support of the building standing up...I doubt it.

TAM

This was answered. You would be wrong.

 

[triforcharity]

My delison? No plane crashed into WTC-7 at even 30 MPH so it doesn't matter. In fact it's not even the reason NIST claims the buildings collapsed. If NIST had told you the towers collapsed because of thermal expansion admit it, it would have been good enough for you. Too bad they didn't brainstorm that excuse back when they wrote their collapse initiation report on the towers. It could have saved a lot of time and money.

Correct. No plane did crash into 7WTC.

The NIST says that a combination of a 767's impact damage, and the ensuing fires, caused the collapse of 1&2 WTC. Your reading for comprehension sucks.

If NIST had said thermal expansion in 1&2, I would be suspicious, considering damage and huge fires that were never extinguished, and never subsided.

Do you not realize I am not a fan of Kurzberg?

Right, that is why you use his name as your SN? Excellent! I hate the Yankees, should I change my name to "Yankees"? This makes NO sense whatsoever.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

The floors provided torsional rigidity, as would any floor spanning the interior of a box, I'm not sure how that's relevant to the vertical loads.

Providing rigidity is structural.

If you have evidence showing NIST is wrong, wouldn't you want to send it to NIST? I'm not the one saying the NIST report is wrong. Would you like me to send a letter to NIST telling them that?

Write all the letters you like. You wouldn't be the first.